Don't be stupid. God created all life, He's like a parent to us all.
That means God had sex with his child, who then gave birth to Him.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I still think there are potential psychological issues that would be present. And even if there wasn't, I would still think it should be illegal. Allowing all kinds of sex except one specific one would basically be allowing the one you want to avoid since it would be pretty simple to have vaginal sex and claim it was any other kind if asked about it.
There is a difference between the two examples. In the plane example, people are aware of the risks and may choose to fly in one or not. The same cannot be said of any malformed offspring of incestuous relationships. Furthermore, you cannot count on people using all protection available. I would think the amount of unwanted pregnancies that are present everywhere would be a pretty good indicator of that.
Are you saying that the law should state that incestuous couples must use every kind of protection available and not have vaginal sex? Doesn't that seem to contradict your initial premise that no one should be allowed to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? And if you are already willing to admit that we can, in fact, limit what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, how then is my argument to do just that so much more unacceptable? Especially considering that your stance would do little to nothing to prevent people from having unprotected sex. It would be almost impossible to actually have such a law and enforce it to any reasonable degree.
I still don't understand this line of reasoning. It's like playing a game of russian roulette with someone and saying it's okay because it's only bad if the guy actually get's shot, which is, at this point, a hypothetical situation that may or may not come to pass.
Are you sure? Because I thought incest was currently illegal.
So you are relating a racist idea of what it means to be perfect to health defects? I still see that as a rather large leap. The problem is that health defects actually harm the child. Skin color does not, regardless of what racist people may say.
This is a connection that has been repeatedly attempted to make, regardless of how many times I refute it. You are basically labeling malformed people as a specific group of real people that I am attempting to stop from being brought into the world. Which is not the case at all. I am trying to stop deformities from being forced unnecessarily on potential children.
As I have said time and time and one more time again, any and all malformed people have every right to be brought into this world as any one else. I suggest you stop trying to derail the debate with this irrelevant discussion of my motivations and focus more on proving my points to be invalid or illogical.
I don't know what you mean here. I'm saying that putting the risk of mental and physical disabilities on children is wrong. In a sense I'm saying both the act and the consequence is wrong, depending on how you look at it. The consequence I am talking about is not deformed people being born, however, as you seem to suggest. As I have said, I have no problem with deformed people being born. The consequence that I am talking about is two people increasing the risk of those deformities on someone else. And incest is wrong because it is an act that does this.
Again, you seem to insist that incestuous relationships will always result in sex that uses every form of protection available to prevent pregnancy, which is not very realistic.
Again, are you saying incestuous relationships that do not use every form of protection available to prevent pregnancy should be made illegal? And if this is the case, how can your defense that illegal incest is wrong because it tells two consenting adults what they can and can't do in the bedroom be rationalized with this?
Legality of incest (usually defined as sexual relations between blood relatives) changes depending on where you live, with the only real consistency seeming to be that sex with minors is strictly prohibited.
Anyways, all the arguments so far for the illegalization of incest seem really weak. As far as this notion goes that incest leads to vague and undefined psychological problems, I don't really see it as the government's place to step in and determine which relationships are most healthy for a citizen's psyche.
As for 'incestuous sex leads to ear-less babies', I feel uncomfortable with the idea that we should rule who can and cannot have sex based on the children they could potentially produce. I understand that disabilities are demonstrably unhealthy, but the chance of conception can be minimized, and there aren't (as far as I'm aware) laws in place to dictate the sexual relations of anybody with existing physical or mental conditions that can be passed on genetically. You could make an argument for increased awareness regarding the potential consequences of mixing sibling's genes, but outlawing sex entirely doesn't really seem fair to the couples involved. Also I imagine lots of incestuous couples aren't even capable of producing children for any number of ordinary reasons - I mean, should queer incestuous couples be the only ones allowed to bang each other because they can't make babies? What if the couples involved can't produce children due to physical conditions (sterile, messed up womb, whatever)? Should the gov't give them a free pass in the bedroom? Meh.
I didn't mean it like that. I meant that even if incest doesn't have any potential psychological damage I would still think it should be illegal.
You gave the example that if incest were to not produce children, it would be alright. Does that mean that you think that incestuous relationships that do not take any steps to prevent incest, or indeed, even incestuous relationships that try to have children should not be allowed?
Why? In a hypothetical situation in which it was known that any child a couple has will live for 3 months in unimaginable pain and then die, wouldn't you consider it acceptable to restrict that couple from having children?
I can see no valid reason to see restricting potentially damaging sexual activity as wrong. Even if you hold to the idea that "As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, they can do whatever they want" it still doesn't fit, because incestuous sex actually does place risk on other people.
yes, my opinion is that the government has no right to regulate against incest so long as it is consensual and between adults
additionally, were the government to start regulating against relationships that cause psychological damage, potentially any relationship would be illegal. The last major relationship I had still causes me issues given how it ended.
further, the idea of the government regulating against disabled children being born strikes me as incredibly problematic
EDIT: I'd still like your thoughts on the fact that an incentuous couple who use contraceptives have a much lower risk of having a disabled child than do two strangers who do not. Would you then suggest not using condoms or other forms of birth control should be illegal?
That doesn't really refute the comparison. Unborn babies can't really consent to anything. I would value the choices and wills of the living parents above that of their unborn, hypothetical offspring in any case.
Wow it's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
I don't think there should be a law lol. My whole argument is that there is no good reason to make a law against incest.
Russian Roulette has a 1/6 chance of splattering someone's brains. Maybe higher depending on the number of bullets. Do not even try to force this comparison.
Nope.
I'm not relating it, and as I said when I first broached the subject I'm not saying that this is your view either. What I'm saying is that you're essentially making an argument for eugenics which had its roots in racism as well as a large number of backward "sciences" and philosophies. Your basic argument is that breeding should be regulated by law. This is a dangerous path to go down.
You've refuted it? Where? This is news to me. Here I thought you were just flailing about and trying to move the goal post.
Also I'll return to my poverty example which you failed to adequately address: should we also keep poor people from breeding to keep them from forcing their poverty unnecessarily on potential children?
I have been doing that the entire time. You're just flailing.
I want to know why you would say that they have a right to be born if you're going to advocate legislation specifically aimed at ensuring they're less likely to be born?
I understand that you'd prefer that people didn't have to suffer from disabilities, I share that concern. But at the same time I don't think the solution is to nip it in the bud by constraining the freedom of real, living people for the sake of double hypotheticals (the double part being that they might be born or might not be and if so they might or might not be malformed)
What's wrong about the act? The act it seems is only wrong because of consequences. My entire issue is that the act of putting your penis in your sister's vagina isn't immoral in of itself.
Okay...
...deformed people being born=not wrong
...people creating deformed people=...not wrong?
...people increasing the risk of creating deformed people=WRONG
...risk increasing=WRONG because...?
I'm insisting that there are plenty of forms of incest that carry next to no risk of conception. I want you to debate me on why incest is immoral independent of the issue of conception. You want to debate me on why incest should be illegal. I have no interest in the latter argument and you seem to have no interest in the former. But at the very least I'm humoring you.
Nope, I'm stating that if we were to agree that increasing the risk of having deformed children should be something legally regulated (spoiler alert: I don't agree) then only that case where the parents are clearly not doing anything to minimize the risk would be at all reasonable to prohibit. It's the difference between drunk driving and just driving. One is illegal for good reason, the other is legal.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
I would consider it acceptable to question more deeply why a couple who was placed in a ridiculous scenario where they could know with certainty that a child would 'love for 3 months in unimaginable pain and then die' would still want to bear a child.
Every sexual activity between a healthy, heterosexual couple is potentially damaging to hypothetical unborn children. Genetic risks aren't unique to incestuous couples. Should it be illegal to have sex if you have any family history of mental illnesses, or if one of your parents died of cancer?
You're suggesting prohibiting happy, loving couples from making love regardless of the precautions taken, type of sexual activity or ulterior reasons that prevent potential pregnancy. You want to discuss the morality of incestuous activity, that's a separate discussion, but there's absolutely zero precedent set to make the activity illegal.
I'm actually really disappointed that Canada has the anti-incest laws in place that they do... hmm, learn more every day.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
If only you had a relative in the courts, they could declare cousin lovin' to be A-Okay.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
ours have in the past, and still do, but a lot of the time they make really weird decisions when you think it would be a black and white issue (government bans on sunday shopping were allowed for some reason, though it is a clear violation of economic and religious freedom)
I've heard from law professors that the CCC is in dire need of an update.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 2nd, 2011 07:40 AM
